APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY Vs. SUDHA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th March, 1997, passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1233 of 1996.

(2.) Mr. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that the Division Bench of the High Court committed gross error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the finding of the Appropriate Authority with regard to the market value of the land in question, in the absence of any procedural irregularity and in the absence of a finding by the High Court that the Appropriate Authority had considered irrelevant materials or have excluded relevant materials from consideration. A finding of an inferior Tribunal like the Appropriate Authority under the Income-tax Act can be interfered with by the High Court when the Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not considered relevant materials or it has considered irrelevant or extraneous materials or the conclusion is one which no reasonable man can come to the said conclusion on the materials on record or the conclusion is one which based on no evidence. Since in the case in hand the Appropriate Authority took the relevant sale instances in the locality to arrive at a conclusion where valuation shown in the agreement to sale was grossly low and on consideration of those relevant and germane materials the Appropriate Authority came to the conclusion that the valuation shown in the transaction was grossly low, the said conclusion should not have been interfered with the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 even if the High Court could have come to the conclusion as an original authority. In other words what the learned Additional Solicitor General contended is that the power of High Court being supervisory in nature the said power must be exercised within the parameters already indicated in several decisions of this Court and the High Court was not justified in embarking upon an enquiry of the evidence and on reappreciating the same in coming to a conclusion that the valuation arrived at was not proper.

(3.) Mr. G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing for the transferee and Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the transferor on the other hand contended, that for invoking the powers of property purchased under Chapter XX-C of the Act the burden being on the department to show that the apparent consideration of the property shown in the tran-saction is less that its fair market value by 15% and the said burden not having been discharged in the case in hand by the department by adducing a reliable and germane materials the Division Bench of the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion and order passed by the Appropriate Authority.